Invitation to comment on Road Accident Fund’s Administration of Claims and Compliance with Court Procedure
DE HLATSWAYO VS ROAD ACCIDENT FUND
In the Mpumalanga Division of the High Court, the Honourable Judge President Legodi directed that the conduct of the Road Accident Fund (RAF) in administering claims, and in particular trial preparation, required further investigation and issued a ruling to that effect. Follow the link below for a copy of the court order dated 22 March 2022.
In terms of paragraph 6 a copy of the court order was sent to the Legal Practice Council (LPC), who were directed to file an affidavit dealing with the issues raised with the RAF by 21 April 2022, later extended to 7 June 2022. In terms of paragraph 7 of the order the Plaintiff is at liberty to collate information from other divisions of the High Court regarding the issues raised with the RAF.
To enable the LPC to comply with the directives made by the court and in order to provide as wide a range as is possible of the national experience of the RAF’s administration of claims and compliance with court procedures, practitioners are requested to set out examples of their own experience in prosecuting RAF claims. It will be in the interests of all claimants and their attorneys if as many practitioners as possible respond, so that the court is provided with a national overview.
It will be appreciated if you would send your responses to kris@lssa.org.za by 27 May 2022, to comply with the court order.
Merely as a guideline, comment on the following aspects would assist the court:
• RAF’s meaningful response to the lodgement of claims;
• RAF’s conduct in administering the claim prior to the institution of action;
• RAF’s conduct in matters after action has been instituted;
• RAF’s response to correspondence and phone calls;
• Availability of relevant claims handler;
• Settlement offers in matters where no trial date has been allocated;
• Settlement offers in matters where a trial date has been allocated;
• Ability to communicate with RAF regarding pre-trial process;
• Meaningful participation by RAF in pre-trial procedures;
• Failure by RAF to attend pre-trial when requested to do so by presiding judge;
• Reaction of RAF to cost orders made against them during pre-trial process;
• Co-operation by RAF is signing pre-trial minutes;
• Appointment by RAF of own experts;
• Rejection of claim by RAF as “not serious” without any expert reports to support this;
• Effectiveness of State Attorney’s office in claims process;
• Rejection of claims for past expenses by bill review department for technical reasons, i.e. no ICD10 Code;
• Failure by RAF to pay in terms of a judgement after the expiration of 180 days; and
• Trials of claims being conducted without any legal representation for RAF.
For a more comprehensive list of areas of concern please view the circular prepared by the Johannesburg Attorneys Association.
Click here for to view the court order.
Click here to view the JAA circular.
